I think that is actually a key part of the issue. It seems by all accounts that you seem to think that things are going great and are happy to deny there is any problem to even begin with which very much feels like gaslighting.
There is a huge amount of evidence now to suggest that the moderating is wildly out of step with the majority opinion on a continuous basis and when asked about it the response is simply to imply it’s a problem with me personally which I know full well not to be true by the fact that certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion and there has never been a single public action that I could point to that would even begin to acknowledge that there is indeed a small reactionary minority who flag things in ways that have zero resemblance to the stated rules.
People will loudly and proudly on a regular basis talk about how they blindly flag anything that meets their own personal criteria when they could have instead used the hide link just as easily.
There IS a problem here with a small minority of people who continually make decisions on what OTHERS can read, it’s clear as day, you just don’t want to be honest about that fact.
You don't need to keep making these accusations of dishonesty and "gaslighting" by us. You just need to look at our incentives. HN can only continue to exist if we keep the site interesting to the majority of users.
A small contingent of users keeps making the same complaint about the flagging of a category of posts, and their activity indicates they want HN to be different from what it is intended to be.
> certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion
The role of HN is not to cater to "popular opinion". We very specifically exist to surface projects/topics and host discussions that aren't happening elsewhere.
You keep insisting that it's a "small reactionary minority" suppressing these stories. We know that's not what it is; it's users who understand HN's purpose and want it to focus on what it's intended to be: a site that engages curiosity rather than stirring up rage.
We know that political topics are important, and we do make space for them when there is "significant new information", which, despite these complaints, still ends up being multiple times per week. And we get roughly equal complaints from people that there is too little politics and too much.
You're most welcome to do what others do and email us when there's a story that you sincerely believe is good content for HN, given the guidelines, and we're happy to discuss it and explain our thoughts about it.
This whole argument is just so disjointed I don’t know where to start other than to once again say that I very much understand that in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should be but if you’re trying to make the argument that that is the same thing as the rules are written I would disagree.
But in this same post you’ve said:
1. HN needs to be interesting to the MAJORITY of users.
2. HN is not designed to serve MAJORITY opinion.
3. There is no MINORITY of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons
4. There is however a MINORITY of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.
You won’t even admit that there is a potential problem here that there exists a group of people who flag things entirely on ideological grounds with zero bearing on the rules as they are written.
I understand that you’re a moderator here and I’m not but I think you’re doing a bad job and being either dishonest or intentionally obtuse here. At no point did I ever get the impression there was even the slightest sense of curiosity from the moderation team no matter how many times it was mentioned. It’s always the same reply, things are going exactly as we want them to and you’re crazy to suggest otherwise.
> in your opinion things are going exactly as you think they should
I don't think that things are going "great" or "exactly as they should" on HN or in the world at large. It takes constant effort to keep political/ideological toxicity from both ends of the spectrum from poisoning this place. I would love it if HN could have a positive influence on politics and the broader world, but in reality we don't have much clout. My personal hope is for every person to have the greatest amount of freedom, opportunity, abundance and agency that can possibly be attained, including for the least privileged in society, and I'd happily have that be an ongoing topic of discussion on HN. But interesting new ideas about that are notably missing from the ragey politics-related discussions seem to happen here.
> 1. HN needs to be interesting to the majority of users.
Yes, otherwise the audience will leave and HN will die.
> 2. HN is not designed to serve majority opinion.
By that I mean we're not about catering to people's opinions about politics/ideology the way news media outlets cater to an ideological position (e.g., Fox News).
> 3. There is no minority of people flagging stories for disingenuous reasons
Dan and I have both been doing this job for years and we look at the flagging patterns every day. There are some users who do mis-use the flag feature, and when that happens we turn their flags off.
> 4. There is however a minority of people complaining about things being flagged despite repeated and almost daily evidence of the opposite happening.
The users complaining about "censorship" or "suppression" of a category of stories make up a relatively small cohort of people who want HN to be more focused on that category of stories, yes. But we look at their activity (submissions, comments) and see that what they want HN to be is different from what HN has always been intended to be, which is a site for curiosity, not rage.
If you can frame your arguments in these terms, we'll have a better discussion. I.e., if you can point out the evidence that we're doing a bad job of optimizing HN for curiosity rather than rage.
There is a huge amount of evidence now to suggest that the moderating is wildly out of step with the majority opinion on a continuous basis and when asked about it the response is simply to imply it’s a problem with me personally which I know full well not to be true by the fact that certain topics are continually removed from the front page where they are by definition by popular opinion and there has never been a single public action that I could point to that would even begin to acknowledge that there is indeed a small reactionary minority who flag things in ways that have zero resemblance to the stated rules.
People will loudly and proudly on a regular basis talk about how they blindly flag anything that meets their own personal criteria when they could have instead used the hide link just as easily.
There IS a problem here with a small minority of people who continually make decisions on what OTHERS can read, it’s clear as day, you just don’t want to be honest about that fact.